Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2022-09-07 DRB Minutes DRAFTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 7 September 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Stern, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner I; B. Armstrong, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, C Mack, R. Dickinson, J. Maschek, D. Leban, K. Mejia, J. Desautels, C. Orben, G. Bourne 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and explained participation via technology. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: Mr. Armstrong asked if he could make his comment regarding Agenda item #8 prior to the presentation, so he would not have to wait 3 hours to do so. Members agreed to allow this. 4. Announcements: Ms. Philibert introduced Marty Gillies, the new Development Planner 1. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-22-11 of Gary Bourne to create a general PUD consisting of 3 consolidating existing lots into one lot, removing three existing buildings and fully redeveloping the resulting 1.39 acre lot with a 3,500 sf financial institution, a 2,500 sf multi-tenant commercial building, and a 3-story, 27-unit multifamily building, 760 Shelburne Road: Ms. Philibert reminded members that item had been continued to allow additional public comment, if any, to correct a deficiency in public notice. She asked if there were any public comments. There were none. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SD-22-028 of Rieley-Cohen Partnership, LLC, to amend a previously approved site plan for a 13,000 sf contractor or building trade facility with outdoor storage. The amendment consists of constructing a 5,500 sf addition and additional outdoor storage, 4 Harbor View Road: Staff advised that the applicant is working with the State stormwater permitting department and has asked for a continuation until 18 October. Ms. Wyman moved to continue SD-22-028 until 18 October. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minor subdivision amendment #SD-22-12 of BTV Hotel, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of creating a 1.01 acre lease area around the approved 118 room hotel near the northern end of the existing parking garage, 1300 Airport Drive: Staff advised that this item was withdrawn. 8. Continued final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with 3 single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on eleven lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert advised that she owns a unit in the adjacent Hillside development, but she did not feel this would bias her in any way. Mr. Armstrong then cited the tremendous collaboration the O’Brien people have with the neighbors, with UVM, etc. He asked if it would be too much to ask, in the spirit of collaboration, that the redoing of the Old Farm Road sidewalk take place at the end of the process, 4 or 5 years out. He felt this would be a win-win-win for all. He would also agree to back off from any appeals. Ms. Philibert asked what the benefit would be. Mr. Armstrong said the neighbors could start landscaping at an earlier stage to provide more screening, and the path could better align with the Tilley Drive/UVM project. Mr. Albrecht asked why they would want to screen a sidewalk. Mr. Armstrong said he cherishes Old Farm Road, has lived there for 25 years and enjoyed so DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 3 much privacy, and he doesn’t want to see all the people walking down the street. He noted that other neighbors agree. Ms. Keene noted that the Board made a determination in Preliminary Plat as to when the sidewalk goes in. Mr. Langfeldt said they are trying to find a resolution to this and hope to continue the discussion with staff. He noted the project is already under appeal as a result of this issue. Mr. Behr said the Board can discuss this during deliberation. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Members agreed to spend the first hour and a half on staff comment, then deal with the proposal for a the C1LR zoning district. #2. The applicant was asked to confirm that the recommendations of the traffic impact analysis bike/ped study are fully included in the plans. Mr. Langfeldt said they have come to an agreement with UVM regarding Lot 6 and a cost-sharing agreement. Mr. Dickinson confirmed that all plans reflect what was in the Preliminary Plat approval and are incorporated in the plans. #3. Staff recommends that the Board accept the applicant’s proposal for computation of lot coverage within the R1-PRD zoning district. Ms. Keene noted there is a 25% lot coverage in the district. Because of the number of roads, they are asking that roads not be counted, and staff is OK with this. Mr. Gill said this will provide for better site design and allow for homes where garages don’t face the street. Mr. Albrecht asked whether this has been done before. Ms. Keene said it has not, but “creative interpretation” is neither permitted nor prohibited. Mr. Albrecht said he kind of likes this as it would be lot coverage the applicant doesn’t really own (e.g., street, sidewalks). Mr. Langfeldt said the issue arose when inclusionary units were figured and, and they did not account for the additional lot coverage. Residents could also put a ‘bump out” on their living room. Members questioned whether this would allow for more units. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that they are not asking for more units, and they would be OK with a stipulations that this would not result in more units. Mr. Kochman asked if this could be framed to limit what can be done with those square feet. #4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to develop a proposal for how to administer minor home expansions in the future, given the maximum allowable lot coverage and the eventual private ownership of lots or footprint lots. Mr. Gill said patios seem to be the biggest thing they are seeing. Mr. Gill suggested using the biggest footprint to determine DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 4 coverage (they have 20 different footprints). As the project builds out, they can calculate the exact coverage. Ms. Keene cited issues on other developments where it became a question of “who gets there first” with patios, etc. #5. Staff questioned the space between garages and homes (Ms. Keene indicated this on the plan). Mr. Gill said he thought they can adjust this to 10 feet between garages and homes. There is an area where the stormwater plan ‘crept up.’ It only involves 4 homes. Five feet is not usable. Ten feet could accommodate a grill, etc., and it could be a nice feature. They can include that change in the plans. #6. Staff is requesting an updated phasing plan. Mr. Gill said they made some updates and will continue to update. Ms. Keene noted there was discussion at Preliminary Plat regarding phasing, and the Board felt some of the recreation and infrastructure should be done early on for the benefit of residents in the homes. That is why the Old Farm Rd. path was put in. Mr. Gill said they think the buildout of residential units will be a 5, 6, 7 year buildout. He showed the program of phasing from there on. The barn, pavilion and road improvements all are in the housing phase. #7. The Board gave the opportunity to put forth an alternative proposal that achieves the same objective of providing certainty that infrastructure will be completed in a timely manner relative to construction of the majority of homes. If no such alternative exists, staff considers there has been no change. A letter from the O’Briens was then shown indicating the following phasing: Lot 18 open space – with the 30th zoning permit Lot 19 open space complete at the 75th zoning permit Barn – completed at the 125th zoning permit Relocation of Old Farm Road (curb to curb) – at the 125th zoning permit Open Space Playground near Kimball Ave. – at the 400th zoning permit Old Farm Road sidewalk completed – by the 400th zoning permit Mr. Gill confirmed they are trying to delay Old farm Road work to allow screening to go in and to settle the appeal that has been filed. Mr. Gill noted they had originally used trip ends as a determinant, but staff requested zoning permits. He felt it makes sense for lot 45 to be tied to trip ends. He added they will need only one zoning permit for the large office building. Mr. Albrecht said 400 homes without no place for residents to walk is a non-starter for him. Mr. Gill said that is why they are suggesting trip ends. Ms. Keene said the 125 zoning permits means you still get the open space even if the market goes bad and they don’t build more homes. Mr. Gill said they don’t make money until they get to the end, so they are not going to forego 30 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 5 homes. Mr. Stern asked if the barn open space will still be open space even if the barn doesn’t have all the amenities. Mr. Gill said “you will have it.” Ms. Keene said she would prepare some deliberative material for the Board on this issue. #8. Staff noted staff’s recommendation is the same as with #4. Mr. Gill said this was just a miscommunication. They want to build Old Farm Road when they build the homes that are on it. It would be required when lots 25, 27, 28, 29, etc. are being built. Ms. Keene said the city wouldn’t accept the road until there are a lot of homes on it. Mr. Kochman asked what would happen to lot 30. Mr. Gill said that is up in the air. It wouldn’t be there under the current proposal. It had been a little commercial lot. Ms. Keene said this will be covered in the second part of the hearing. #9. Mr. Gill said that is all set. #10. Mr. Gill said they are getting a stormwater permit. Ms. Keene questioned whether any of the phasing will be win conflict with state requirements regarding the amount of disturbed area at any time. The applicant confirmed that they will meet state requirements. #11. The Board was asked to require the applicant to explain what is meant by this phasing in order to understand whether there is an alternative phasing with the same intent that may be appropriate. Ms. Keene said the concern is with having just one home on each of several roads. She did not think the applicant would do that. Ms. Philibert agreed and had no concerns about it. Mr. Langfeldt questioned over-regulating something that doesn’t need to be regulated. Ms. Mann asked when they open a phase, would they have to do all the infrastructure before building the homes. Mr. Langfeldt said it would be a bit of both. You don’t want curbs that would be run over by an excavator. He said if they start a phase, there is bonding security that the whole road will be built. #12 and #13 were tabled. #14. Regarding redesigning the central common space and relocating the utility cabinet, Ms. Keene said in this area, homes should be arranged a central element. It looks they’re arranged around a utility cabinet. Mr. Gill said there might need to be one at each end. They can do that. #15. Mr. Gill said they proposed a new landscape plan for this spot (he showed the plan). It brings the rec path into the hospital’s project. He showed the location of the rec path. There is no sidewalk on the upper part of Potash Road. Ms. Orben noted the location of the wildlife area. They will be putting in pollinators and all native species. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 6 #16. Staff questioned accessibility in areas with stairs. Mr. Mack said most paths are accessible. There are places with benches where people can enjoy the views. But there are a few places with stairs to capitalize on landforms. #17. Staff questioned whether there should be temporary overflow dog park parking in the C1-LR district. Ms. Keene suggested a little graveled area. Mr. Gill said they still have 7 spaces. A temporary lot is fine. Members then addressed the C1-LR District proposal as follows: Mr. Gill showed a photo of the C1-LR area. He noted they have put a lot of work in on this area. He indicated Kennedy Drive, Kimball Avenue and the old and new adjustments to Old Farm Road. Mr. Maschek said the challenge was topography. He showed a conceptual plan and indicated the main roads and new orientation of Old Farm Rd. He also indicated the “town center” area. The question is how to handle the topography and work with the regulations. They have always been trying to figure out how to create a dynamic core here and were stuck with a large parking lot in the center. They then organized the area to the south so they could break up the parking area. They are 20 feet above the corners, so you cannot see the cars. This can be enhanced with landscaping to present a naturalistic soft edge. They can focus attention onto a long street with multi-use buildings, etc. around a center that can be used for fairs and other events. Two buildings could accommodate parking below. They would be able to create a pedestrian, living street, and connect to Hillside and Kennedy Drive. South of the center would become more residential with community space and/or retail space on the lower floor. Parking would be under the buildings. There would be a softer edge on the Kimball Ave. side (native grasses, etc.) The buildings more to the inside would be more urban, with a plaza for residents to gather outside. Mr. Maschek identified another pedestrian trail that would connect to the dog park and town center. Garages would be tucked into the hillside. He then identified the location of row houses, town houses at the edge of the area. They would face a green space and be of contemporary style with lots of outdoor café space. He showed a conept of the potential look. The applicant then showed a conceptual plan of the west side of Old Farm Road with sufficient space on each side. There would be crosswalks at intersection and a change of materials as you enter the new street. He indicated the potential for an outdoor fair. There would be a 15-foot wide sidewalk between the building façade and the tree band as well as street trees and angled parking on each side. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 7 Mr. Albrecht said this is still servicing the “car culture.” Mr. Maschek said the concept could allow for parts of the street to be closed down temporarily for something like a craft show. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that a lot of the parking is under the buildings. Ms. Keene noted that retail in this area is limited to 5,000 sf per tenant and 15,000 sf per building. Mr. Kochman felt angled parking was objectionable and should be removed. Mr. Langfeldt said the alternative is a massive parking lot. Mr. Maschek noted that angled parking works beautifully in St. Albans, and he believes it works in this kind of environment. He added that they chose the concept of a “living street” instead of a “complete street.” Mr. Kochman suggested that instead of retail there might be a pavilion for a bandstand, the arts, etc. The applicant showed a site section, indicating the grade change. Mr. Gill said they would be asking for a height waiver to 5 stories above the parking. The 5th story would be set back. There would also be setback waivers. Mr. Gill noted the infrastructure far exceeds the ability of the homes to fund it. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SD-22-10 to 6 October 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed unanimously 9. Minutes of 2 August 2022: Ms. Mann moved to approve the Minutes of 2 August 2022 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Ms. Philibert asked for an update on the dog park. Ms. Keene said when the DRB reviewed the dog park, its authority was limited to the wetland. The fence location was not part of the DRB review. Fencing does impact the wetland, but the Board will not deal with it until changes are proposed. The current issues have no relation to the DRB’s action. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on